The Bombay High Court on Thursday said that it would not permit unregulated or unmonitored slaughter of animals anywhere in Maharashtra and that hygiene and sanitation were important. The court directed the state government to reply to a plea challenging a ban on the “age-old practice” of animal sacrifice within the protected area of the Vishalgad Fort at Kolhapur. The petition, filed by the Hajrat Peer Malik Rehan Mira Saheb Dargah Trust, challenged the February 1 communication from the deputy director of archaeology and museums (Mumbai) that banned animal sacrifice citing a 1998 high court ban on animal sacrifice in the names of gods or goddesses at public places. Advocate Satish B Talekar, appearing for the Trust, complained that by the communication, the authorities had stopped or prevented animal sacrifice in the surrounding areas and not within the Vishalgad Fort area. “The impugned orders are issued under influence of right-wing outfits or Hindu fundamentalists and to please the majority community for political gains by the party in power and therefore suffer from malafides,” the petition alleged. “The authorities had swung into action only under an influence exerted by right-wing Hindu fundamentalists and not because there was either a law and order problem or such slaughtering was spreading unhygienic conditions or causing the threat to the security of the monument, i.e. Vishalgad Fort.” The petition also said the dargah within the fort precincts was a historical monument constructed in the eleventh century and is visited and revered by both Hindus and Muslims. Though the animal sacrifice at the dargah was an “integral custom”, the petition said, the actual sacrifice does not take place at a public place but behind closed doors on private land nearly 1.4 km away from the fort. These offerings are served to pilgrims and others at the dargah and have been a source of food to many poor people residing in the surrounding villages of the fort, the petition claimed. It termed the ban to be “arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, high handed, oppressive” and in violation of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. While hearing the petition, a bench of Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Neela K Gokhale noted that petitions against the move to clear the entire site around the monument were pending. When advocate Talekar initially sought interim relief, Justice Patel remarked, “There is no question of interim relief in matters like this. It is an irreversible process. We are not going to permit unregulated and unmonitored slaughter anywhere. Some level of civic hygiene and sanitation should be maintained. It might be an age-old tradition. But if you are trying to give it a communal spin, we will say the petition is motivated and that is the ground on which we will dismiss it. There is an invocation of the need to maintain certain sanitation and hygiene. We had passed orders in matters seeking annual sacrifice (Bakri-Eid) in homes and housing society compounds.” Talekar responded that some right-wing organisations including the Bajrang Dal, and not the Trust, were giving a communal colour to the issue. “There are so many temples where this (animal sacrifice) happens. Why is this dargah being singled out then?” he argued. “It has to start somewhere. We will ask for slaughtering to stop everywhere (places of worship),” the bench responded. After Talekar submitted that the Trust was not pressing for an interim relief, the bench directed the state authorities to file a reply by July 3 and posted further hearing for July 5.
